General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMNobody II
you shouldn't drink alcohol to quench your thirst because it dehydrates you

He put an arbitrary restriction on what my response could be, and my intent was to point out that there's really no reason that people can't drink alcohol simply because it's there.

Why do you drink soda? But you can't say because you like the taste. His statement seemed rather silly to me.

I do know that alcohol does dehydrate you, and perhaps I should have been more clear in my answer. Thank you for pointing out something I should have made more clear.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-22-2006, 08:37 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#346  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Junkie Mod
totensiebush
shit the needle broke off in my ass cheek
 
Junkie Mod's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
He put an arbitrary restriction on what my response could be, and my intent was to point out that there's really no reason that people can't drink alcohol simply because it's there.

Why do you drink soda? But you can't say because you like the taste. His statement seemed rather silly to me.

I do know that alcohol does dehydrate you, and perhaps I should have been more clear in my answer. Thank you for pointing out something I should have made more clear.
I drink soda both because I like the taste and because I like having some caffeine in me
Old 01-22-2006, 08:40 PM Junkie Mod is offline  
Reply With Quote
#347  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMNobody II
I drink soda both because I like the taste and because I like having some caffeine in me

Exactly. To me, his statement that you cannot drink alcohol to quench your thirst (with the insinuation that it is only ever used to get drunk) seemed silly to me. His restriction on my answer was just as arbitrary and pointless as my restriction was on your answer.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-22-2006, 08:48 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#348  

Enygma
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Getting high is not inherently irresponsible or destructive, why should you care what someone does in private or think you have dominion over another's home or private life where it causes you no harm? The vast majority of marijuana smokers use marijuana responsibly as well. Just because you don't think people should be doing something doesn't mean we need to have that enforced with the criminal justice system. Someone growing weed in their garden and consuming it responsibly in their home causes you no more harm than someone growing tomatoes in their garden and consuming them in their home. The point with comparing weed to alcohol and other potentially dangerous pastimes is to point out that we already accept equally or more dangerous alternatives which allow people to do the exact same thing as marijuana, alter their consciousness. Arbitrarily deciding that one of these alternatives should be criminal for no good reason makes criminals out of ordinary people for no good reason.

this needs to be quoted because it has not been responded to and is the central point of your view that is wrong. you have absolutely no right to dictate what i am allowed to do with my own body in my own time so long as these things i do do not harm others.
__________________
It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living. ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau

this sig for sale, PM for details.
Old 01-23-2006, 02:56 PM Enygma is offline  
Reply With Quote
#349  

lawlzkekeke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
He put an arbitrary restriction on what my response could be, and my intent was to point out that there's really no reason that people can't drink alcohol simply because it's there.

Why do you drink soda? But you can't say because you like the taste. His statement seemed rather silly to me.

I do know that alcohol does dehydrate you, and perhaps I should have been more clear in my answer. Thank you for pointing out something I should have made more clear.
So if I said that some people smoke marijuana because they like the taste - which obviously isn't true - what would your response be? Alcohol is okay because the drunkeness it induces doesn't bother you like the high marijuana induces?
__________________
abf1f166d804cd4795f910ec03abb1ae
Old 01-23-2006, 08:22 PM lawlzkekeke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#350  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawlzkekeke
So if I said that some people smoke marijuana because they like the taste - which obviously isn't true - what would your response be? Alcohol is okay because the drunkeness it induces doesn't bother you like the high marijuana induces?

Like I have said several times already, it's an issue of what people use the substance for. Most people do not use alcohol only to get drunk. The only thing people would use marijuana for is getting high. I'm not going to restrict the majority of people (alcohol users) because of a minority (people getting drunk) that makes bad decisions.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 02:22 AM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#351  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enygma
this needs to be quoted because it has not been responded to and is the central point of your view that is wrong. you have absolutely no right to dictate what i am allowed to do with my own body in my own time so long as these things i do do not harm others.

I assume you're talking to me, as pyramid is arguing on your side.

Who decides what is right or wrong? Who says that I have no right to tell you not to put something in your body? In America, it's the majority of voting citizens. Unfortunately for you, right now they happen to agree with me.

If you're asking the question in a moral sense, it's not really something we can argue about. I've decided that my desire to not have marijuana in my society is more important than your desire to smoke marijuana. You obviously subscribe to the school of thought that says do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others. I believe that there are some things people should do and there are things people should not do. Getting high is one of those things you shouldn't do.

You also apparently believe that nobody should interfere in anybody elses' lives when the issue doesn't directly concern you. Again, I think differently, and my views reflect that.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 02:33 AM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#352  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Who decides what is right or wrong? Who says that I have no right to tell you not to put something in your body? In America, it's the majority of voting citizens.
Wrong. We do not have majority rules and if your best reasoning is that you just don't like the idea of what is going on behind someone else's closed doors even though it causes you absolutely no harm then you shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on my friend. Any law based on that reasoning should be just as unconstitutional as anti-sodomy laws. Just because the majority is against something doesn't mean it neccesarily has to be or should be illegal. You should have no more right to use the weight of the criminal justice system to tell me what smoke I should or should not inhale in private as you have to tell me what objects I should or shouldn't be able to stick in my asshole in private. In case you were wondering, your power to tell me, or any other consenting adults, what we can and cannot stick in our own assholes in private is approximately dick. haha, can you tell I've been watching penn and teller's BS?

The whole idea of freedom that we go around talking about and patting ourselves on the back like we invented is based on the idea that I get to live my life any way I damn well please so long as I don't interfere with your or anyone else's ability to do likewise. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ring any bells? Freedom and liberty for all? Freedom isn't having to get a general consesnsus from a majority of the population before engaging in non-violent non-criminal private consensual act. I don't need your permission to act upon myself. I don't need to ask you if I can masturbate, I don't need your persmission to go to the bathroom and I don't need your permission to put things into my own damn body, thank you very much.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-24-2006 at 05:59 AM..
Old 01-24-2006, 05:56 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#353  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Wrong. We do not have majority rules and if your best reasoning is that you just don't like the idea of what is going on behind someone else's closed doors even though it causes you absolutely no harm then you shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on my friend. Any law based on that reasoning should be just as unconstitutional as anti-sodomy laws. Just because the majority is against something doesn't mean it neccesarily has to be or should be illegal. You should have no more right to use the weight of the criminal justice system to tell me what smoke I should or should not inhale in private as you have to tell me what objects I should or shouldn't be able to stick in my asshole in private. In case you were wondering, your power to tell me, or any other consenting adults, what we can and cannot stick in our own assholes in private is approximately dick. haha, can you tell I've been watching penn and teller's BS?

The whole idea of freedom that we go around talking about and patting ourselves on the back like we invented is based on the idea that I get to live my life any way I damn well please so long as I don't interfere with your or anyone else's ability to do likewise. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ring any bells? Freedom and liberty for all? Freedom isn't having to get a general consesnsus from a majority of the population before engaging in non-violent non-criminal private consensual act. I don't need your permission to act upon myself. I don't need to ask you if I can masturbate, I don't need your persmission to go to the bathroom and I don't need your permission to put things into my own damn body, thank you very much.

Perhaps that's how you would like it to work, but it isn't.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 12:06 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#354  

rijaxo
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Perhaps that's how you would like it to work, but it isn't.

You cant drink soda anymore, because its bad for you mkay.
__________________
hmmmmmm...
Old 01-24-2006, 12:53 PM rijaxo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#355  

Enygma
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Perhaps that's how you would like it to work, but it isn't.

you don't know anything about democratic theory, do you?

edit: i think Mill said it best
Quote:
...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
__________________
It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living. ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau

this sig for sale, PM for details.

Last edited by Enygma; 01-24-2006 at 01:41 PM..
Old 01-24-2006, 01:38 PM Enygma is offline  
Reply With Quote
#356  

Junkie Mod
totensiebush
shit the needle broke off in my ass cheek
 
Junkie Mod's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Wrong. We do not have majority rules and if your best reasoning is that you just don't like the idea of what is going on behind someone else's closed doors even though it causes you absolutely no harm then you shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on my friend. Any law based on that reasoning should be just as unconstitutional as anti-sodomy laws. Just because the majority is against something doesn't mean it neccesarily has to be or should be illegal. You should have no more right to use the weight of the criminal justice system to tell me what smoke I should or should not inhale in private as you have to tell me what objects I should or shouldn't be able to stick in my asshole in private. In case you were wondering, your power to tell me, or any other consenting adults, what we can and cannot stick in our own assholes in private is approximately dick. haha, can you tell I've been watching penn and teller's BS?

The whole idea of freedom that we go around talking about and patting ourselves on the back like we invented is based on the idea that I get to live my life any way I damn well please so long as I don't interfere with your or anyone else's ability to do likewise. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ring any bells? Freedom and liberty for all? Freedom isn't having to get a general consesnsus from a majority of the population before engaging in non-violent non-criminal private consensual act. I don't need your permission to act upon myself. I don't need to ask you if I can masturbate, I don't need your persmission to go to the bathroom and I don't need your permission to put things into my own damn body, thank you very much.
I would like to see a case where somebody is growing a few plants (literally, ie 3) for private use only argued like this.
Old 01-24-2006, 01:38 PM Junkie Mod is offline  
Reply With Quote
#357  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles

When I say "drinking responsibly" I mean that they aren't drinkning just for the effects. I posed CDC statistics above that say 2/3 of adult drinkers do not binge drink, and somewhere around 95% of adult drinkers are not heavy drinkers.

I'm all right with alcohol because most people don't just use it for the effects. My problem with marijuana is that it's universally seen only as a way to get high. My problem is with getting high, not the substance itself.
I'd say the majority of people who have ever used marjuana use it similiarly to how they use alcohol at social events. Many people smoke a joint or a small bowl at parties or at social gathering as a way to relax and become more "social". When I smoke alone, I use pot to help myself relax and then read a book or watch t.v., the same goes for most people I've met who smoke by themselves. Can you say the same about those who drink by themselves? The effects of a small amount of marjuana are insignificant compared to even two or three beers. The vast majority of smokers no more use marjuana just to get high any more than the vast majority of drinkers use alcohol just to get drunk. I'd also wager that someone who is addicted to marjuana is still in a much better shape than someone who is addicted to aclohol (I've seen both types).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Essentially, that is what I'm saying. I have the right in America to try and legislate anything I want. If french fries bother you that much there's nothing stopping you from trying to get them banned. The fact that people can use alcohol to get drunk is unavoidable, but I've never been one to restrict the majority based upon what a minority of people do.
Sure you have the right to try and legislate whatever you want but the courts can step in to protect the rights of the minority, it's one of the founding principles of the US. Ever read the constitution or read the bill of rights? It's pretty clear the founding fathers did not intend for legislation (or the majority controlling the legislators) to be able to infringe on individual rights, especially property rights.

Last edited by Jim Morrison; 01-24-2006 at 02:43 PM..
Old 01-24-2006, 01:46 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#358  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMNobody II
I would like to see a case where somebody is growing a few plants (literally, ie 3) for private use only argued like this.
I'm sure there have been many cases but I doubt anyone won. Tim Leary won his case in supreme court that found that the original tax act scam was unconstitutional which is why drug law was rationalized under intrastate commerce. Denying anyone the legal right to possess, consume, or grow their own weed is now legally covered under intrastate commerce for some reason IIRC. If I remember correctly the rationalization goes back to some archaic law where it was supposedly vitally important to stop people from growing their own tomatoes/vegetables in their home gardens because then they could resell them to their neighbors who might happen to live across a state line and not report the tax or some ridiculous nonsense like that. Basically justifying one useless law with another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Perhaps that's how you would like it to work, but it isn't.
That's how it's supposed to work. If we hadn't decided that we needed to make weed illegal to kick out/harrass mexican immigrants 70 years ago then that's the way it probably would work. As it stands we started a bad policy for no good reason and we've spent the better part of the past century trying to justify it and rationalize it as for our own good despite the fact that the law does nothing productive for us, is a complete failure according to its own stated goals, has little to no chance of ever succeeding, and is contrary to the principles of individual liberty that our nation was supposedly founded upon. How could we possibly let go of something that great?

If you can accept the very real fact that people (even if it is not all of them) use alcohol or any number of items/activities to alter their consciousness legally and responsibly then there is no reason that anyone should face the criminal justice system for seeking to alter their consciousness with a less dangerous substance like marijuana. Our laws should be rooted in reality, not your imagination. It doesn't matter how many people do it. It doesn't matter what you personal opinion is. If we allow one then the other should be just as legal. To say otherwise is to legislate from your preferences and in a free country people are free to do to themselves as they choose, not free to do as you choose. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect people from one another, not to protect people from themselves.

What you are saying is basically akin to: "chocolate cake should be legal but vanilla cake should not and that makes perfect sense to me because I don't like vanilla." Either it should be legal to eat cake or not, you don't get to choose what flavor of cake is legal for me to eat. Not even if you think people only eat vanilla cake to excess. No one should have to go to jail for eating a flavor of cake you think they ought not to eat. That is exactly what you are saying when you say alcohol should remain legal but people should be criminalized for choosing marijuana. You are dictating taste and in a free country I am supposed to be able to dictate my own personal taste. If I prefer vanilla then I should be allowed to have vanilla no matter how you feel about vanilla.

I think this has boiled down to the point where you need to provide some reasoning for your position if we are to continue to debate further. This seems rather one sided. You should justify why I should need to go to jail for consuming a plant in the privacy of my own home and causing no harm to anyone outside myself. If you have some compelling argument as to why marijuana should be illegal while other more dangerous intoxicants like alcohol should remain legal other than your personal preference then I'd like to hear it. What makes marijuana possession/production/intoxication so much more dangerous than alcohol pssession/production/intoxication that we need to consider marijuana users dangerous criminals?
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-24-2006 at 05:17 PM..
Old 01-24-2006, 03:28 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#359  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
I think this has boiled down to the point where you need to provide some reasoning for your position if we are to continue to debate further. This seems rather one sided. You should justify why I should need to go to jail for consuming a plant in the privacy of my own home and causing no harm to anyone outside myself. If you have some compelling argument as to why marijuana should be illegal while other more dangerous intoxicants like alcohol should remain legal other than your personal preference then I'd like to hear it. What makes marijuana possession/production/intoxication so much more dangerous than alcohol pssession/production/intoxication that we need to consider marijuana users dangerous criminals?

I actually said that I don't think people should go to prison for simple possesion or use. My personal preference is the only reason I want marijuana illegal and alcohol legal. That's enough for me to act on. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-24-2006, 05:28 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#360  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.